Ann Althouse said...The government had 69 possible complainants, and not one would side with the prosecution. Nice teamwork.

Maybe they all independently decided that the offense wasn't worth pressing charges over, or that they themselves didn't find it to be an offense at all. Maybe it was a conspiracy/teamwork or maybe it wasn't.

The fact that the photo made it into the yearbook and past the eyes of so many editors and others who reviewed it doesn't say much for the kid's manhood. In any case, to borrow a phrase from Glenn Reynolds, the prosecutors should be tarred and feathered. They should, instead, be looking into those cold cases from last Halloween where numerous houses were TP'ed.

Personally I find this body shaming just reprehensible. This young person was just expressing himself and exploring his sexuality--exhibitionism is a valid means of sexual expression and all sexual behavior is healthy. How dare the police and authorities attempt to impose their regressive morality on this young person--what, does he have to conform to the Taliban's demands now and subvert his own sexual health because some WHITE MAN wants to put their WHITE LAWS on his body? No, he/she/xer deserves better--they deserve our appreciation and support.

The photo was used in programs and was in the yearbook (which they have recalled). No one noticed until someone told on him.

His first mistake was doing something stupid on a dare. His second mistake was talking to the police and admitting he did it. I'm glad they dropped the charges. I don't see how anyone was harmed by something they didn't notice.

The other 69 potential claimants were on the football team with him. Which is why none of them were about to press charges, even if they were offended, which they weren't. The important word there is "team". We are talking extreme male bonding here, and anyone who did it would be shunned.

In most jurisdictions - I cannot speak for this one - this occurs when a police officer gets a wild hair and makes an arrest charging a ridiculous number of counts for something that should have never been an arrestable offense in the first place.

The prosecutor's office then has to clean up the mess. I can't guarantee that's what happened here, but I'd make a sizeable wager the first they heard of it was when the arrest report hit their office.

Ok, I guess someone has to play devil's advocate and stick up for the prosecutor; may as well be me.

Filing 69 counts is excessive, I grant, but what this kid did (as captured in the picture) was to intentionally expose himself, and that's a crime. If the police and prosecutor, having been presented with this evidence, had decided to do nothing this time they'd have to answer why. When the next case of exposure/public indecency came forward (so to speak) and they did decide to prosecute they'd have to articulate why that case was bad enough to go after the person but this case wasn't. This case featured particularly egregious behavior even if the actual harm wasn't very great--the law-breaker was practically daring the authorities to punish him, and declining to take any action would set a precedent and send a message that rules and laws can be flagrantly broken with no consequence. That's a particularly bad message to send to young people (perhaps especially to young male athletes) and sending such a message mean miseducating everyone involved. The decision to file so many charges was a bad one. The decision to pursue law enforcement action against someone who deliberately violated the law in an egregious manner was not neccessarily a bad one.

"Maybe they all independently decided that the offense wasn't worth pressing charges over, or that they themselves didn't find it to be an offense at all. Maybe it was a conspiracy/teamwork or maybe it wasn't."

When members of a team independently decide to do what supports a teammate, I call that "teamwork."

Ann Althouse said...When members of a team independently decide to do what supports a teammate, I call that "teamwork."

Do you have any term to distinguish between actions taken independently (by team members) and actions taken collectively (by the team as a whole) in a coordinated manner? I don't have an OED handy, but the first definition of teamwork the Google box gives (from Dictionary.com) is cooperative or coordinated effort on the part of a group of persons acting together as a team or in the interests of a common cause so the "coordinated" nature of the effort seems important for the common definition. I'm sure you can argue that independent (uncoordinated) actions can nevertheless be cooperative...but the same source gives the definition of cooperative as working or acting together willingly for a common purpose or benefit so once again the concept of intentional cooperation is a part of your definition.Now, in this case it seems fair to assume that some, if not most, of the players coordinated their actions (even if informally) and I'm not really arguing that they didn't. I am arguing, though, that we don't have any evidence that they DID, and I'm further arguing that the common understanding of the word "teamwork" involves something other than wholly-independent and uncoordinated actions taken by a group on behalf of some common goal. The SuperPACs and candidate campaigns both have the goal of getting their person elected, but if they work together (as a team) it's coordination and that's illegal, so accusing them of engaging in "teamwork" means something different under the common definition (as I've argued it) and yours.

Wait till the prosecutor finds out about the habitual pattern of indecent exposure in the locker room showers. Much more to this story than meets the eye. The team photo is just the tip of the iceberg.

Wibur: "In most jurisdictions - I cannot speak for this one - this occurs when a police officer gets a wild hair and makes an arrest charging a ridiculous number of counts for something that should have never been an arrestable offense in the first place."

I doubt it. The reason is police generally are barred in most jurisdictions from making an arrest without a warrant unless it is witnessed by the officer or on the speedy information of others, such as the victim of a domestic assault. Given the time lapse, there likely was a warrant which generally must be signed off by a prosecutor.

I would suspect the prosecutors were involved from the outset and the prosecutor approved the 70 counts. This does not appear to be a case where the prosecutors were cleaning up a mess created by cops.